John Robertson: I agree with my right hon. Friend that the excellent manifesto launched by the NCA needs looking at. One key point in it relates to the problem of intragovernmental discussions. For example, when children are involved, we need to consider education and skills. What steps is she taking to co-ordinate arts policy as suggested by the NCA and will she state what real-terms spending on the arts will be in the coming year?

John Whittingdale: Is it not the case that the NCA has said that the need for Government support for the arts has never been stronger, yet just today the chairman of the Arts Council has spoken again of the feeling of betrayal among arts organisations about the Government's freeze in arts funding for the next three years? That comes on top of the reduction of almost 50 per cent. in the money for the arts coming from the lottery. Is it not the case that the biggest boost that we could give to the arts would be to stop using the lottery to substitute for taxpayers' money and instead restore it to its original purpose, thus benefiting each of the original four good causes including the arts by more than £100 million a year?

Hugo Swire: While it is true that free entry has increased the number of visits to museums, it is worth pointing out that an increase in the number of visits is not the same as an increase in the number of visitors. Is it not true that the Government have inadequately compensated museums for forcing them to abolish entry charges? Only last week, staff at the Science Museum went on strike, with the director blaming the Government for "consistent undervaluing and underfunding" following the abolition of entry fees. Will the Secretary of State give an assurance, as I have, that if directors and trustees of museums wish to charge visitors and if they, as professionals, want to do what they consider best for their museums, they will not be penalised for doing so?

Estelle Morris: It is not for me to commit our party to what may or may not be in the manifesto. The important point about social inclusion is that the treasures held in our museums, and the skills of our actors and of those who play in our orchestras, benefit everyone, no matter what sort of family background or region children are born into. We know from the statistics that whole groups of people do not access the arts because they do not think they are for them. We are determined, through all the measures that we take, to give them the confidence to ensure that they access the arts and get from them what many of us have always got from them. I hope that my hon. Friend will join me in celebrating the fact that more children go to the theatre, listen to orchestras and watch the ballet than they did in 1997. Equally, I accept from him that even more needs to be done.

Don Foster: I am sure that the Secretary of State agrees that obtaining the 2012 Olympics would boost people's interest in sport and help to achieve the targets, and I congratulate the Olympic bid team on its work in the past week. Does she agree that we can have little confidence in the Government's aspirations for the targets set out in "Game Plan", when we discover that the target for 70 per cent. of the population to be active by 2020 is already 20 years behind schedule and was rejected by Wanless and Sport England? The 70 per cent. figure came from a mistranslation by the Secretary of State's Department of a document from Finland, which claimed that 70 per cent. of Finns already achieve the target when the actual figure is only 30 per cent.

Dave Watts: Is it not time that that we spent a bigger proportion of our lottery funding on sport instead of culture and will my right hon. Friend consider introducing a tick box on lottery tickets to allow people to decide whether they spend their money on culture or sport?

Jane Griffiths: I thank the Minister for that welcome reply. Will he join me expressing good wishes to the Palmer Park Velo cycling club in my constituency, which I feel confident will produce cycling stars like Bradley Wiggins and Nicole Cooke for the future?

Tony McWalter: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the strong action that he wants to take in response to terrorist threats would receive greater support if it were clear that all the available evidence would be brought to court, particularly phone tap evidence? That greatly exercised the Standing Committee that considered the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill, but when the Bill reached this House, only one sentence of objection came from a Labour Member—my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). It is vital that phone tap evidence is admissible in court to minimise the prospect of people being unnecessarily detained without trial.

Peter Hain: For the reasons that I have already explained, I do not consider that necessary, because the Bill amends only one section of the 2001 Act. There will be plenty of time both to debate it in principle on Wednesday and to probe the Home Secretary before that, tomorrow. There will then be detailed line-by-line consideration on Monday. The precedents established by previous Governments, including ours and those in which the right hon. Gentleman served, show that when we have had to introduce emergency legislation of this kind, we have had to do it quickly. The reason that it is being done at this time is that much care and thought have gone into getting the balance absolutely right—as best we can—between the protection of individual liberties and the threat of terrorist action. The right hon. Gentleman should welcome what we are doing when the whole proposal is published tomorrow.

Peter Hain: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, and he is always entitled to press me for more time, especially on such important issues. I remind him, however, that Royal Assent is required by early March at the latest as the Bill will need to be in force and control orders made in respect of the current detainees, if appropriate, before the part 4 powers lapse on 14 March, otherwise those people may simply walk out. The procedure still has to take its course in the House of Lords before Royal Assent can take place, and the Bill may be closely debated there, as the Lords are entitled to do. We are absolutely right to bring in the Bill as we have done, but we are anxious to see the fullest possible scrutiny of it.

John Bercow: Notwithstanding the right hon. Gentleman's protestations, many of us in all parts of the House believe that the decision suddenly, and with such haste, to introduce this threatening piece of legislation is extremely undesirable given that one of the linchpins of our liberties is under threat. Can he, on the strength, presumably, of advance sight of the draft of the Bill, at least offer the House an assurance that where such a sacred liberty is under threat the Bill that we see will be the Bill in total, and that there will be no provision in its clauses for further and potentially damaging incursions on liberty, introduced by the Government in the form of secondary legislation?

Patrick McLoughlin: The Leader of the House keeps telling us about the very tight timetable that we must meet. Presumably, he knew of that timetable when he made his last business statement to the House. Since then, the House has not sat for a week, and now he tells us that there will be but just six days from First to Third Reading. Will he assure me now that the House of Lords will not get longer to debate this issue than the House of Commons, which is elected?

Oliver Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The judgment about the airports White Paper found that the Government's actions had been unlawful because they had not consulted properly on the options for Stansted or consulted at all about the situation at Luton airport. In those circumstances, it would be very helpful for local residents and others to know what the timetable will be for the proper consultations that will now have to take place. Is it in order for the Secretary of State to make an oral statement now that he has already made a written one? Is there any bar on his doing that? Is such a statement possible if, in the light of the comments made, he decides that he wishes to make one?

Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That the Programme Order of 10th January 2005 in relation to the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill be varied as follows:
	1.   Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the order shall be omitted.
	2.   Proceedings on consideration shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following table.
	3.   The proceedings shown in the first column of the table shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column.
	
		
			  
			 Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings 
			 New Clauses, amendments and New Schedules relating to Part 1; New Clauses, amendments and New Schedules relating to Part 2; New Clauses, amendments and New Schedules relating to Part 3; New Clauses, amendments and New Schedules relating to Part 4. 2 hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this order. 
			 New Clauses, amendments and New Schedules relating to Part 5; New Clauses, amendments and New Schedules relating to Part 6. 3 hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this order. 
			 New Clauses, amendments and New Schedules relating to Part 7; New Clauses, amendments and New Schedules relating to Part 8; New Clauses, amendments and New Schedules relating to Part 9; New Clauses, amendments and New Schedules relating to Part 10; remaining New Clauses and New Schedules; remaining proceedings on consideration. 4 hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this order. 
		
	
	4.   Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion—
	(a)   5 hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this order; or
	(b)   at the moment of interruption,
	whichever is the later.—[Alun Michael.]

Anne McIntosh: I shall oppose the programme motion as vigorously as possible for several reasons. It is not yet 4 o'clock on the day of the week on which the House usually sits until 10 pm, so Conservative Members find it difficult to understand why knives have been imposed that will fall arbitrarily and thus deprive the House of an hour's debate and scrutiny of a Bill on which both we and the Liberal Democrats wish to raise several new issues. We failed to secure the number of Committee sittings that we would have liked, but having lost that argument we gave the Bill the fullest possible scrutiny, while being mindful of the timetable that was imposed on us.
	The most extraordinary thing occurred because the usual channels were not followed as rigorously as is normal on this occasion. As the walk-on speaking part, I was called on to agree with the usual channels about when the knives should fall. I am sure that the usual channels will not want that to happen in future. An even more extraordinary event occurred because my office today received a faxed copy of a letter from the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality, who will lead for the Government, and although the time on the fax said that it was received at 16.25 on 21 February, the House will note that it is not yet that time. I then received a hard copy of the same letter in my hand at 3.40 pm, which was only just before we started our proceedings on the Bill. The letter informed me why the Government have drafted several amendments that were tabled at the last possible moment—Thursday last week.
	I do not wish to eat into any more time, but we deplore the Government's rather shabby behaviour because we thought that we had achieved a good working relationship and co-operation, given the circumstances. On a positive note, I am delighted that we have stirred the Government into action and that they have recognised that there are failures in the Bill, as we consistently stated on Second Reading and in Committee. We shall continue to point them out today. As I said, we will oppose the programme motion as vigorously as possible.

Clause 2
	 — 
	Gating Orders

'In the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978 (c. 3), after section 2 (offence of unauthorised abandonment of vehicles etc.) insert—
	"(1)   A vehicle shall be deemed to be abandoned if—
	(a)   there are recent observations or evidence regarding its inactivity;
	(b)   there has been no activity regarding it on the DVLA's database for a continuous period of 5 years;
	(c)   the number plates and Vehicle Identification Number have been removed;
	(d)   no Statutory Off Road Notification has ever been notified and recorded on its DVLA record;
	(e)   the vehicle is burnt out;
	(f)   the vehicle is deemed to have no value; or
	(g)   the vehicle is a hazard."'. —[Miss McIntosh]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Alun Michael: Clearly, deciding whether a vehicle is abandoned is one issue. Vehicles are not considered to have been abandoned if they are taxed and the Bill will help with that. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that was one obstacle. Others include the length of time a car has been left and so on. Those are the sort of issues that we are tackling in the Bill.
	Detailed considerations such as those set out in new clause 6, as opposed to the sort of issue that the hon. Gentleman pointed out, are not appropriate for primary legislation. Clause 13 requires local authorities to have regard, when carrying out their functions under the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978, to guidance issued by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales. If necessary, the new provision can be used to put the current guidance on a statutory footing.
	On amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 14, it is a matter of fact and practical experience that local authorities have had great difficulty in proving that someone is acting in the course of a business when a transaction occurs in the street. The offence of exposing for sale specifically covers two or more vehicles because we want to make it clear that we are targeting rogue traders, not private sellers. The offence relates to two or more vehicles being advertised for sale on the same road, which would suggest the presence of a businesses venture, so the burden of proof should be on the defendant. In the unlikely case of a private seller selling two or more vehicles at the same time, it would be easy for them to prove with DVLA documentation that the vehicles were registered in their own or their family's name and that it was coincidence that they were being sold at the same time. The burden of proof is not beyond reasonable doubt, but on the balance of probabilities.
	The clause provides a clear line of defence if there is prima facie evidence of an offence, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out. It is a line of defence more than a reverse burden even if, technically, it is a reverse burden to some extent. The first part of the clause as drafted indicates what amounts to a person being guilty of the offence. They must be shown to have left
	"two or more  . . . vehicles parked on the same road where they are exposed or advertised for sale"
	or to have caused that to happen.
	Subsection (2), on the other hand, provides the defence that someone who is not a trader can bring forward. If the words are removed, as proposed, that defence would be rendered meaningless as a person would not have to prove that it applied in their case. I suggest that the proposals would render nonsense the legislation as drafted.
	I shall now explain Government amendments Nos. 24 and 25, which, you will not be surprised to hear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I support and want added to the Bill. Cars sold on the road through commercial businesses can cause problems and annoyance for ordinary people and a significant blight on an area. Cars repaired on the road can take up valuable parking spaces, look unsightly and pollute the local environment. The amendments are minor but important and would raise the maximum penalty for offences of nuisance parking to ensure consistency and to bring them in line with other environmental offences.
	As the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton pointed out, the hon. Members for Guildford (Sue Doughty) and for Ludlow (Matthew Green) tabled a similar amendment in Committee, and I undertook to consider the points that they made in discussion. Having done so, I have proposed the amendments. The maximum fine for other environmental offences, such as abandoning a vehicle or littering, is level 4, so they are appropriate.
	I urge hon. Members to withdraw their new clause and amendments and to accept our amendments Nos. 24 and 25, which I commend to the House.

Anne McIntosh: The Minister uses an unfortunate expression. He should be mindful of the fact that that the Government have used such a phrase at great length in the explanatory notes.

'In section 89 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (Duty to keep land and highways clear of litter), after subsection (4) insert—
	"(4A)   The appropriate person may by regulations make provision about the standards to which persons must keep land clear of litter under subsection (1) above in respect of different kinds of litter.
	(4B)   In particular, such regulations may make particular provision about discarded chewing gum and the discarded remains of other products designed for chewing."'. —[Miss McIntosh.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Alun Michael: I suppose that I should begin by welcoming the fact that one or two Conservative Members appear to have woken up to the importance of the Bill. However, on Second Reading, they opposed it and even failed to turn up to debate it, and they did not make major contributions in Committee. They therefore have a cheek to make such contributions to today's debate.
	I must resist new clause 2 on a ground that I hope that the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) will find immediately convincing. It is unnecessary because section 89(7) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 already requires a code of practice to be issued on the discharge of the litter clearance duties. That has been achieved through the code of practice on litter and refuse of 1999. Subsection (9) allows the code to be modified or withdrawn and reissued. We plan to consult on a new version of the code in the summer to take into account the changes for which the Bill provides. I assure hon. Members that we will cover standards for litter involving gum and smoking-related products in that code.
	New clause10 is unnecessary and its principles have been debated in detail in Committee. The hon. Lady has a predilection for pointless regulation while resisting well considered efforts to tackle the real issues. The Government are already working with local government and the chewing gum industry through the chewing gum action group to tackle the problem of discarded chewing gum. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) referred to that a few moments ago. I set up that action group in autumn 2003.
	Members of the group represent the interests of both the chewing gum industry and local authorities, including Wrigley as the largest manufacturer in the UK, the Local Government Association, the Chartered Institution of Wastes Management and ENCAMS. We sponsor ENCAMS to run campaigns on behaviour change, which is at the heart of the matter. The group's remit is to find sustainable solutions, through a partnership approach, to the irresponsible disposal of gum.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton referred to the segmentation research, which arose out of the group's work. The group considered the research and asked why people behaved in such a way. The segmentation research demonstrated that different groups in society dispose of their gum in antisocial ways for different reasons. That is why the campaigning work, which is being designed and worked on in conjunction with the industry and ENCAMS, is tailored to the genuine reasons for people's behaviour.
	We have gone beyond simply saying that things are better elsewhere to asking how we can effect change by first understanding behaviour and then finding the levers that will lead to better behaviour, and litter disposal that does not cause the problems that hon. Members described. The action group is looking at national and local initiatives. The market research project will inform a national awareness-raising campaign that will take place later this year, which will be complemented by sustainable local campaigns around enforcement and innovative disposal solutions. There is no single solution to this; it is a question of carrot and stick and of behaviour change. It is a question of encouragement as well as exhortation.
	I am pleased by the way in which the industry has responded over the past 18 months. It is now contributing financially to the measures that the group developed. I spent some time at Wrigley in Plymouth a couple of weeks ago, with my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton, and I am convinced that the managing director, Gharry Eccles, and his team understand that, in regard to the more responsible disposal of gum, it is in the best interests of their company and the industry, as well as those of the wider public, to change the way in which people behave.
	The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) sounded almost European in his wish to learn from other countries. I share his wish for better standards, but we must understand the problems of this country first. He clearly had not bothered to research his subject before coming into the Chamber to speak on it, otherwise he would have been aware of the work that the industry is now doing with us. It was unfortunate that he sought to attack the industry, and Wrigley in particular, in his speech.

John Gummer: I am proud to make the statement that I am a European. I am a European, I am proud of it, and I shall continue to be so. I should like to make a point to the Minister that I think is reasonable. I did not suggest that the industry had done nothing; I suggested that it had not done enough. I ask the Minister again to give us some time lines in regard to what the industry is going to do, when it will do it, and how soon we can expect to see any alteration. If he could do that, we would be happier with what his Committee has been doing.

Alun Michael: I was being generous to the right hon. Gentleman, but if he does not want my generosity, he can do without it. I was about to say that I should not be too hard on him because he is now supporting a Bill that his party opposed on Second Reading—a point that needs to be made to Conservative Members time and again.
	Amendment No. 3 will be resisted because it is unnecessary. Clause 18 will make it an offence to drop litter anywhere in the open air, including on land beside railways, railway carriages and buses. It will cover structures such as bus shelters and railway platforms that are covered but accessible to the public. It will also cover land to which the public does not have access, such as boarded or fenced-off land adjacent to railways where dropped litter can easily accumulate.
	Subsection (3), by virtue of section 86(13) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, will exempt land that is both covered—albeit open to the air on at least one side—and not accessible to the public. Littering in such areas is really a matter for the occupier to deal with as it does not impact on the quality of the local environment. The amount of litter likely to end up in such areas when thrown from a railway, railway carriage or bus is minimal.
	I must point out to the hon. Member for Vale of York that, when she was talking about transport undertakers, she confused clause 18, which deals with the offence of dropping litter, with clause 20, which is about litter cleansing notices. Amendment No. 3 does not affect the latter. Railways are under a statutory duty to keep their relevant land clear of litter, and that is not affected by the Bill. Litter cleansing notices could be issued in respect of other railway land, but we will issue guidance to ensure that they take account of operational needs after full consultation with the relevant operators. I therefore ask the hon. Members not to press their amendment and new clauses to a vote.

Amendments made: No. 26, in page 20, line 36, at end insert—
	'(7)   For the purposes of this Schedule a person does not distribute printed matter if the distribution takes place inside a public service vehicle (within the meaning of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981).'.
	No. 27, in page 22, line 3, after 'person', insert
	'or any other person (identified specifically or by description)'.—[Alun Michael.]

'(1)   The Secretary of State shall consult waste collection and waste disposal authorities on the introduction of statutory targets for the minimisation of municipal waste.
	(2)   The Secretary of State shall consult representatives of industry on the potential for minimisation of waste of—
	(a)   statutory waste minimisation targets;
	(b)   statutory requirements for substitution of materials that are hazardous, difficult to recover, or difficult to recycle; and
	(c)   market incentives to promote the redesigning of products to extend their useful life and limit unrecoverable waste.'. —[Sue Doughty]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Anne Campbell: I do not want to detain the House for very long, but I want to add a few remarks to those made by the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty), who made some very valid points about waste minimisation. The whole purpose of our recycling policy should be to reduce the amount of waste material going into landfill sites, but the hon. Lady will doubtless join me in congratulating the Government on increasing recycling in an astonishing way—one that I did not think possible in 1997.
	In my own local authority, when Labour was in control in 1998, we were recycling 14 per cent. of domestic rubbish. That gave the Liberal Democrats a target of 28 per cent. to achieve by 2004, which they failed to realise. They have also failed the further target of 36 per cent. this year. I am sorry about that, because many things could quite easily be done to enable the council to meet its recycling targets.
	I understand that the hon. Member for Guildford is talking about waste minimisation rather than recycling, but I hope that she agrees with me that the higher the rate of recycling, the less waste needing to go to landfill sites. I know that it is not always the case, but manufacturers sometimes seem intent on vying with each to produce more and more packaging, so we all end up with more packaging in our shopping bags at the end of the day. If we can increase the amount of waste for recycling, less material will need to go to landfill.

Anne McIntosh: No, we have heard quite enough from the hon. Lady about this group of amendments.
	The briefing says that we must stamp out all forms of fly-tipping. It is a form of environmental crime which is increasing. It has an element of cowboy activities with a strong criminal undertone, and we must remove the results from private land as well as public land. Why should landowners have to put up with what could be hazardous, noxious and very unpleasant waste on their land?
	The purpose of the amendment is to require the relevant authority to clear fly-tipped material from all land. That would occur only when the occupier had established his defence that the material was fly-tipped. Without the amendment, authorities will continue not to clear waste from land in their areas, so the true scale of fly-tipping will never be ascertained and the necessary resources to deal with the problem will never be allocated.
	I shall not speak at length on the note from the Environment Agency, but I wanted to draw the Minister's attention to it before he responds. It states clearly on page 1 that the agency cannot and would not want to require an occupier or landowner to remove waste or remediate against the deposit if there was no evidence that they were responsible. It also states that the agency does not have the power to require any other person, including the culprit, to remove waste unless they are the occupier or landowner. Again, the agency cites the background data that in 2003 it served 131 notices under section 59.
	In conclusion, I humbly submit to the Minister that the Environment Agency is not empowered to require an occupier or landowner to remove waste or remediate against its deposit if there is no evidence that they are responsible. Clearly, it believes that illegally dumped waste on privately owned land is a more difficult issue than that on public land. Neither the local authority nor the Environment Agency are under any legal obligation to remove the waste. However, the agency states that in some circumstances it will remove illegally deposited waste to mitigate an imminent risk of pollution or harm, and then seek to recover its costs. That is unacceptable. Fly-tipped waste should be removed from all land regardless of whether ownership of that land is private or public.

Alun Michael: Well, the Standing Committee had a good debate on dogs. When we discussed the programme motion, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway) took up some time referring to various organisations, which I have met and engaged with in recent weeks. I assure him that his and their concerns have been addressed. We can make progress, even if he is frustrated and prevented from making his contribution on the only issue in the Bill that seems to bother him.
	New clause 15 is resisted because a number of means exist by which the same objectives can be pursued, including the new landfill tax escalator, the packaging obligations, and the waste and resources action programme. I shall expand on some of those and other issues in a letter to hon. Members.
	New clause 16 is also resisted. We accept that waste disposal contracts must deliver the outcomes in a waste disposal authority's long-term strategy for sustainable waste management and deliver the infrastructure needed to reach those outcomes, as set out in the authority's local development framework. However, local authorities are autonomous bodies and responsible for making their own decisions on procurement within the regulatory framework. Sufficient mechanisms are in place to ensure that existing contracts are reviewed and that future contracts do not cause conflict.
	The duty of best value, as the hon. Member for Guildford said, requires local authorities to secure continuous improvement in service delivery through challenge, comparison, consultation and competition. When an existing contract does not meet statutory obligations, the authority must find a way of taking additional action within or separately from the contract to address the problem or face the consequences. That could involve formal intervention by the Government as a last resort if the authority is failing to deliver best value or a financial penalty under the landfill allowance trading schemes. A number of mechanisms exist—I would be happy to expand on them—that allow us to go in the direction that has led to the drafting of the new clause.
	New clause 17 is also resisted. There are two separate issues: increased packaging recovery and persuading more consumers to recycle more. Both are vital, but it is not clear that compulsory provision of take-back facilities for packaging in-store is the best way of achieving both, although that may play a role. We do not believe that such a duty would add value to the mechanisms already in place. We are also concerned that the proposal would disregard the fact that local authorities have a statutory duty to collect and dispose of household waste, including household packaging waste. It is not clear how the amendment would fit with that duty. There would be practical problems with identification of material supplied from a particular outlet, lack of support from consumers, and so on. However, I do not deny that the proposal could make a contribution and that it is worth exploring further.
	New clause 18 is resisted because waste disposal contracts must be environmentally sustainable, but local authorities are autonomous bodies, responsible for making their own decisions on procurement within the regulatory framework. Sufficient mechanisms are in place to ensure environmental sustainability of contracts, including a duty of best value, statutory performance standards and so on.
	Amendment No. 37 is resisted because it would limit the flexibility of the enforcing authorities to take the most appropriate enforcement action at the most appropriate time. It would not allow them to search vehicles that were reasonably believed to be about to be used to commit an offence. Instead, they would have to wait until the offence was committed and only then proceed to carry out the search. It is important to retain the power to search vehicles that are, it is reasonably believed, about to be used to commit an offence.
	Amendment No. 29 is resisted because the national and local taxpayer—

'(1)   The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 (S.I. 1986/1078) are amended as follows.
	(2)   In regulation 3(2) (interpretation), in the Table, at the appropriate place in alphabetical order, insert—
	
		
			  
			 Expression Meaning 
			 "audible motorvehicle alarm a system fitted within a motor vehicle which involves the sounding of a horn, bell, gong or siren with the purpose of raising an alarm as to the theft or attempted theft of the vehicle or its contents, or a forced entry or attempted forced entry into the vehicle. 
			 bell includes references to any instrument or apparatus capable of emitting a sound similar to that emitted by a bell. 
			 gong includes references to any instrument or apparatus capable of emitting a sound similar to that emitted by a gong. 
			 horn an instrument, not being a bell, gong or siren, capable of giving audible and sufficient warning of the approach or position of the vehicle to which it is fitted. 
			 siren includes references to any instrument or apparatus capable of emitting a sound similar to that emitted by a siren." 
		
	
	(3)   In regulation 37 (audible warning instruments)—
	   (a)   for paragraphs (7) and (8) substitute—
	 "(7)   The provisions of paragraph (4) shall not apply so as to make it unlawful for a vehicle to be fitted with—
	(a)   an audible car alarm, or
	(b)   in the case of a bus, a bell, gong or siren the purposeof which is to summon help for the driver, conductor oran inspector.";
	   (b)   in paragraph (9), for the words "(4) to (8)", substitute the words "(4) to (7)"; and
	   (c)   in paragraph (10), omit sub-paragraphs (a) and (b).
	(4)   In regulation 99(5) (exemptions from general restrictions on use of audible warning instruments), omit the word "or" after paragraph (a), and for paragraph (b) substitute—
	   "(b)   an audible car alarm, or
	   (c)   in the case of a bus, a horn (not being a two-tone horn), bell, gong or siren to summon help for the driver, the conductor or an inspector."
	(5)   After regulation 99, insert—
	"99A   Restrictions on audible motor vehicle alarms on certain motor vehicles first used on or after 1st January 2007
	(1)   Subject to paragraph (2), this regulation applies to a motor vehicle first used on or after 1st January 2007.
	(2)   The provisions of this regulation do not apply to—
	   (a)   motor vehicles of the kinds listed in regulation 37(5), or
	   (b)   buses.
	(3)   The audible motor vehicle alarm of a motor vehicle to which this regulation applies—
	   (a)   may not at any time emit a noise exceeding 55 decibels,
	   (b)   may not emit a noise for a continuous period of more than ninety seconds,
	   (c)   may not emit a noise for more than ninety seconds in response to a single event initiating the emitting of a noise, and
	   (d)   shall be maintained in good working order so as to comply with the requirements of sub-paragraphs (a) to (c).
	(4)   In this regulation—
	'A-weighted sound pressure level' has the same meaning as that given in BS 7445;
	'BS 7445' means British Standard BS7445: Part 1 1991/International Standard ISO 1996-1: 1982 'Description and measurement of environmental noise. Part 1. Guide to quantities and procedures';
	'decibel' is a unit of both A-weighted sound pressure level and equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure level as given in BS 7445.
	99B   General restrictions on audible motor vehicle alarms on certain motor vehicles first used before 1st January 2007
	(1)   Subject to paragraph (2), this regulation applies to a motor vehicle first used on or after 1st October 1982.
	(2)   The provisions of this regulation do not apply to—
	   (a)   motor vehicles to which regulation 99A applies,
	   (b)   motor vehicles of the kinds listed in regulation 37(5), or
	   (c)   buses.
	(3)   The audible motor vehicle alarm of a motor vehicle to which this regulation applies—
	   (a)   may not emit a noise for a continuous period of more than ninety seconds,
	   (b)   may not emit a noise for more than ninety seconds in response to a single event initiating the emitting of a noise, and
	   (c)   shall be maintained in good working order so as to comply with the requirements of sub-paragraphs (a) and (b).".'.—[Norman Baker.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Norman Baker: I am pleased to have the opportunity to introduce these new clauses. Those who pay particular attention to the workings of Parliament may note that there is a striking similarity between them and the Bill that I introduced that is due for a Second Reading on 18 March. I also record the fact that that Bill, which is replicated in the new clauses, has the support of Conservative and Labour Members of Parliament, and I hope that it will generate a response similar to the all-party support that I had for my motion on climate change two weeks ago. The Minister is not nodding now, but perhaps he will later on.
	There is undoubtedly a problem with car alarms in environmental and noise nuisance terms. The Government have correctly identified the need to tackle noise nuisance through the Bill's proposals concerning audible intruder alarms. My colleagues and I broadly welcome what the Government have done on that issue. However, the Minister will also accept—he referred to it in an intervention on Second Reading—that there is a nuisance from car alarms. They can legally sound up to 120dB—the same level as a pneumatic drill or a rock concert. They tend to go off quite frequently, and they are assumed by those who hear them to be false alarms. When people hear an alarm go off, they do not say, "My goodness. A car has been broken into. I must telephone the police." Instead they curse the alarm, put pillows over their heads and try to go back to sleep. Car alarms are not even effective in what they try to do.
	The new clauses have two aims. The first is to eliminate the environmental nuisance associated with car alarms and the second is to improve the security of motor vehicles. If people assume that a car alarm going off is a false alarm, it is obviously no deterrent. When I first raised the issue, one journalist to whom I spoke said that his car was broken into in the street in broad daylight, the alarm went off and the intruder just looked at passers by and said, "Bloody car alarm"—if I am allowed to use that phrase in the Chamber—and carried on with the theft of the car. All the people in the street simply walked by without responding. It is clear that car alarms are ineffective.
	The Minister may be aware of the attempt made in New York to ban car alarms. If he has seen the evidence, he will know that 75 per cent. of 800 New Yorkers polled said that car alarms interfered with their sleep and 90 per cent. said that car alarms diminished their quality of life. More to the point in terms of the crime element, the New York police department, in a booklet that it produced, labelled audible car alarms as
	"an annoying and sometimes unbearable disturbance for residents in their homes".
	It said:
	"audible car alarms frequently go off for no apparent reason"
	and that such devices
	"invite both further disorder and serious crime."
	In other words, alarms not only fail to arrest crime, but generate it. The report pointed out that in Williamsburg during the year in question, two cars were purposely set ablaze because their alarms kept being triggered. There have been other stories of cars being vandalised because alarms have spontaneously erupted, so we can assume that car alarms create crime, rather than preventing it.
	A better way forward would be for manufacturers to stop using 1960s technology—that is essentially what car alarms are—and move towards more effective crime prevention measures that are also less environmentally intrusive. The Minister will be aware of alternative existing technologies, such as immobilisers, which prevent a car from being driven away. He will be aware of pager alarms, which replace the siren in conventional alarms by instead sending a signal to the mobile phone, pager or landline telephone of the car's owner. He will also be aware that tracking systems are up and running that allow a signal to be sent from a car that has been taken, to its owner. That technology has the benefit of not only returning the car to the owner, but identifying the criminal who takes the car. Other systems that are currently available include anti-carjacking systems, so plenty of technologies exist that are far more effective than conventional alarms at detecting crime and preventing car theft, and much less environmentally intrusive.
	The Minister might be aware that Val Weedon, the secretary of the UK Noise Association, wrote to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 10 February. The letter read:
	"I am writing to ask whether the recent Private Member's Bill on audible car alarms, presented in parliament yesterday by Norman Baker MP, could be incorporated into the new Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill, presently making its way through parliament? I understand a similar thing was done with the Anti Social Behaviour Act and a Private Member's Bill on fireworks."
	I am pleased to say that the letter went on to support my Bill. Incorporating my Bill in the Government's legislation would be an excellent idea, so the new clauses make that possible. I hope that the Minister agrees that alarms are ineffective and "alarmingly useless", to use the phrase of a pressure group campaigning against them. I also hope that he will take the view that manufacturers should be encouraged to replace traditional audible car alarms with devices that prevent crime more effectively and eliminate the noise nuisance that currently exists.
	It seems to me that insurance companies are the driving force behind the continuing use of car alarms. Although I do not wish to misquote the manufacturers, they tell me that insurance companies require such alarms to be fitted. Insurance companies should examine whether there are more effective ways of preventing car theft and change their policies accordingly.
	Train horn noise is not directly addressed by the new clauses, but it is germane to the matter that we are discussing because it leads to people suffering an intrusion similar to that caused by car alarms. Train horn noise is also about 120 dB and new trains require louder horns than the old slam-door rolling stock. I am disappointed that the Government have not addressed that problem. Individual hon. Members of all three parties have been required to put pressure on the relevant rail companies and we are making a little progress. The Bill addresses intruder alarms sited at a fixed point, but it singularly fails to deal with alarms on mobile technology—if I may call cars and trains that. The new clauses would limit the maximum sound emitted from a car alarm to 55 dB, which is the equivalent to background traffic noise, and would set a maximum sounding time for a car alarm of 90 seconds.
	The Minister responded to a point about the matter that my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) made on Second Reading by citing the Noise and Statutory Nuisance Act 1993, which states:
	"noise that is prejudicial to health or a nuisance and is emitted from or caused by a vehicle, machinery or equipment in a street"
	can be dealt with. He also pointed out that local authorities can
	"enter or open a vehicle, if necessary by force, to silence a car alarm and to remove the vehicle from the street to a secure place."—[Official Report, 10 January 2005; Vol. 429, c. 121.]
	That is undoubtedly true, but the legislation is not working. Not all local authorities operate 24-hour services, and those that do will not respond within 90 seconds, which under my private Member's Bill would be the maximum time for which a car alarm could sound. In practice, local authorities come out only if an alarm has been sounding for two, three or four hours, by which time an entire neighbourhood could have lost its sleep.
	The new clauses plough the same furrow as the Government's attempt to limit noise nuisance. The Government have identified the problem of noise nuisance, and although they have addressed stationary alarms in the Bill, they have missed a trick by not dealing with car alarms. It is not sufficient to hope that manufacturers will adopt modern alarm systems, because they are relying on 40-year-old technology instead. I hope that the Government will give a sympathetic hearing to the new clauses, because they are an attempt to make life better not only for car owners, but for those who suffer from the noise nuisance caused by car alarms.

Alun Michael: I am aware of the enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) on this subject, and I acknowledge that a range of options are now available for people who want to try to prevent car crime—both the theft of vehicles and breaking into vehicles. Indeed, one could point out that that range of options has made a significant contribution to the reduction of car crime.
	In addition to achieving excellent public relations for his private Member's Bill, the hon. Gentleman recalled that I commented about car alarms on Second Reading. In fairness, he went on to remind the House that I also pointed out that legislation exists to address the problem. I reinforce that point now. Car alarms can be silenced under the Noise and Statutory Nuisance Act 1993, which amends the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to include
	"noise that is prejudicial to health or a nuisance and is emitted from or caused by a vehicle, machinery or equipment in the street".
	It allows local authorities to enter or open a vehicle, if necessary by force, to silence an alarm and to remove the vehicle from the street to a secure place. The hon. Gentleman acknowledged that point, but suggested that the legislation was not working. However, I suggest that we should not consider whether that legislation is working, but the extent to which a real problem exists. He will know that consultation on the elements that form the Bill arose from considerable discussion with local authorities, and that the provisions are based on problems with which local authorities must deal after the public have brought them to their attention.
	It is worth pointing out that under the Police Reform Act 2002, the police can seize any vehicle that causes annoyance or nuisance. It must also be borne in mind that there might be occasions when a car alarm needs to sound for longer than 90 seconds— for example, if it detects continued interference. Additionally, establishing requirements for the duration of alarms and assessing that during MOT tests could generate a lot of alarm noise around MOT stations, which might not be all that popular.
	The hon. Gentleman told us about the experience in New York, so he might be interested in some of the findings from this country, as they come from rather closer to home—the area in which he wishes to legislate. In 1999–2000, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs national noise attitude survey questioned 2,849 people—I am not sure where the 2,850th person, to allow the figures to be rounded up, was. One question was:
	"When you are at home, how much do you personally feel bothered, annoyed or disturbed by noise from car alarms?"
	The UK results were 39 per cent. "not at all", 13 per cent. "a little", 5 per cent. "moderately", 2 per cent. "very", 2 per cent. "extremely" and 40 per cent. "don't hear".
	If we rank specific traffic noise sources in terms of the proportion of respondents bothered, annoyed or disturbed, we get an interesting hierarchy of complaints. At the top, at 34 per cent., are vehicles accelerating or going too fast; private cars and taxis are at 27 per cent.; heavy lorries are at 24 per cent.; motor bikes and scooters are at 24 per cent.; music from vehicles is at 23 per cent.; and problems associated with residential estate roads and country lanes are at 22 per cent. Car alarms are only seventh in the hierarchy, at 21 per cent.
	We are not aware of specific statistics on complaints to local authorities about noise from car alarms, because they do not show up on current record keeping and reporting statistics. However, the complaint does not seem to get the attention from local authorities that the hon. Gentleman gives to it.

Alun Michael: My hon. Friend makes the point precisely; a partnership approach at local level can make an enormous difference and there are mechanisms that can be used. This is not just a question of fines or of putting burdens on business, but of asking business to work with local authorities. I recently experienced something similar when I took part in a study of the way in which voluntary action is cleaning up the River Thames. Trolleys were in evidence, along with all sorts of things that would be a great shock to anybody—spoiling the main river running through our capital city. I have seen the same in my city of Cardiff. It is sad when major cities and environments that should be enjoyable for everybody are spoiled by trolleys.
	I do not seek to place the blame on the supermarkets alone, because the real problem is clearly individuals taking trolleys and leaving them in inappropriate places. A partnership between the local authority and business can achieve the implementation of mechanisms of the sort that my hon. Friend described, to discourage bad behaviour and to try to avoid the defacing of the local environment by trolleys—trying to achieve what we all want: better behaviour and less degradation of the local environment. That is what most of the measures in the Bill are aimed at, and it is why they have received such support from people such as my hon. Friend, and the many hon. Members who spoke on Second Reading.
	I understand the wish of the hon. Member for Vale of York not to put inappropriate burdens on business. I share that desire. That is why the schedule creates conditions for partnership and encourages local authorities and business to get together to create the right environment locally, for the benefit of business and of everyone in the locality.

Alun Michael: In some cases there is no resource implication, but in others powers need to be given to enable people to do things more simply. The way in which parish councils can undertake their work depends on the atmosphere of co-operation that we and the National Association of Local Councils and the Local Government Association engender through a contractual arrangement between the principal local authorities in an area and the parish and town councils that want to take their responsibilities further.
	Local government in this country has come to recognise the value of the contribution that parish and town councils can make to achieving outcomes. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) may agree that there is sometimes conflict and competition between different levels of government. Counties and districts have not always treated each other with mutual respect, love and affection. Principal local authorities have certainly not always fully appreciated the potential of local councils—the parish, town or community councils—in Wales. Sometimes the very local organisations have tended to be too inward looking, concentrating on the capacity to study the minutes of the previous meeting and say no to whatever is proposed for the area.
	I believe that that has changed. Many principal local authorities have changed their attitude towards parish councils. That has been reciprocated. For example, parish councils have been encouraged through the parish plans approach not to wait and react to applications in their area, but to begin to consider the sort of future that they want. Poynton-with-Worth is a good example. That parish council has tried to look forward. Thinking through what is wanted for the parish in the long term helps inform the principal authorities' decisions. That constitutes the partnership approach that it is in the interests of all parties to encourage.
	The Bill shows respect for parish councils' capacity to undertake duties when they want and are able to do that. They are not forced to do so. The measure further encourages partnership by, for example, recognising the principal authorities' greater capacity for enforcement, thus allowing parish or town councils to exercise their powers, if taken up, in partnership rather than as if the different levels of local authorities existed in separate vacuums. They all exist together and, at their best, complement each other effectively. I hope that that deals with the hon. Gentleman's point. He is rightly proud of the performance of the Poynton-with-Worth council, where I enjoyed a productive visit and much discussion.
	The Bill takes a strategic approach to engaging everyone in the work of improving the local environment and reducing crime and disorder in the local community. It especially extends the objectives of crime and disorder reduction partnerships, which are led by the police and local authorities, specifically to include local environmental crime.
	The Bill also provides better tools for local authorities and the Environment Agency to deal with fly-tipping, litter, fly-posting, abandoned vehicles and other nuisances that blight our communities. When talking to people in my area and places such as Splott, which has experienced antisocial behaviour and environmental degradation, or constituents who complain that new graffiti is not a coincidental to the return of someone who have been in one of Her Majesty's institutions for some time, it underlines the importance of making connections and ensuring that we create a better environment. I hear similar comments when I speak to farmers or those in rural communities who say that their areas are often degraded through fly-tipping or abandoned vehicles.Providing better tools for local authorities to tackle those problems is important. Local authorities and the Environment Agency have a will to tackle those issues better.
	Throughout the Bill, we make greater use of fixed penalty fines and give local authorities the power to adapt them to fit with their local priorities. That is important. Fixed penalty fines can be imposed without the bureaucracy and obstacles that exist if people have to be taken to court. Of course, the right must exist for them to choose not to pay the fixed penalty, and thus for the option of prosecution to kick in. In some circumstances, it is up to local authorities to determine the level of the fine in accordance with their experience of what works best and the nature of the problems in their area. We are also giving greater powers to parish and town councils so that the most local level of our democratic structures can play a part in making things better. They will have the power to issue fixed penalty notices for litter, graffiti, fly-posting and dog offences.
	Doing nothing is not an option. Dealing with local environmental quality and antisocial behaviour costs agencies about £3.4 billion per year. That is a massive amount of money and a burden that is ultimately borne by the taxpayer and the council tax payer. Abandoned vehicles cost local authorities £26 million in 2002–03. That is the cost of removal, clear-up and disposal. Even more significant is the damage to the morale of the local community. The measures in the Bill will help us to tackle these problems and to reduce the costs involved.
	I know that the Minister for Housing and Planning, my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Keith Hill), has been a great supporter of the Bill, and I am delighted that he is here in the Chamber with us as we reach the latter stages of its consideration on Third Reading.
	The Bill is a major part of the Government's strategy for improving the environment, for developing a more sustainable future and for dealing with antisocial behaviour. It will help to ensure a real improvement to the quality of life of many people in communities throughout the country, and I commend it to the House.

Anne McIntosh: I have had excellent co-operation with ENCAMS and the Environment Agency in my area. They are alert to the fact that the Government have signed up to a number of directives that have led to an increasing incidence of fly-tipping, often with a criminal element involved. That is why we take this issue seriously. The onus should be on the Environment Agency to remove this stuff, and if it can identify the criminals who have placed it on private land in the country, it should prosecute them, which would help to defray the costs. Signing up to the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive and the landfill directive has seen increasing amounts of white goods being fly-tipped in rural areas. As co-disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous wastes is no longer allowed, there are not sufficient sites to take those and landfill is closing down, I believe that we will return to this issue ad nauseum. The Bill provided an opportunity to rectify that balance and ensure that landowners were put in the same situation as others.
	It is fair to add that the National Farmers Union welcomes many aspects of the Bill, although it has raised a number of concerns with us. I want to put those on record, because the Government failed to consider them sympathetically and act on the amendments that we tabled on the NFU's behalf. On gating orders, the union said:
	"It is unclear on whom the responsibility of the installation, maintenance and operation of the barrier or gate would lie. This issue needs to be clarified."
	Clause 2, entitled "Gating orders", did not clarify it.
	On clause 11, "Notice of removal", the NFU said:
	"Vehicles abandoned on farm land blight the countryside, have the potential to cause pollution and are a hazard, yet do not seem to be addressed."
	Part 3, which deals with "Litter and refuse", includes clause 20, "Litter clearing notices". The NFU
	"would like to see land where illegal events, such as raves or illegal encampments have occurred included in this list."
	So far, they have not been.
	Part 4 deals with "Graffiti and other defacement". We were not permitted to reach it today, although there were concerns about it, too. The NFU mentioned
	"a requirement that any unauthorised advert should be removed. Farmers working land that"
	—by its very nature—
	"is widely spread, not easily accessible or infrequently visited may not be aware of an illegal advert."
	The NFU believes that farmers could be seen to be being victimised. The union would have welcomed Government guidance enabling authorities to deal with illegal deposits of waste, but I made that point at some length a moment ago.
	As for clauses 42 and 43 and fly-tipping,
	"The NFU is concerned that the identification of the true culprit can be difficult to establish, and that the landowner or occupier is more easily established . . . The NFU would urge that landowners and occupiers should not have to pay for costs of enforcement, recovery, or clean-up until the final outcome of any appeal is known."
	Clause 50 is entitled "Power to require owner of land to remove waste".
	The NFU
	"strongly believes that clear guidelines should be put in place"
	so that landowners and occupiers are not required
	"to remove the fly-tipped material simply on the basis that the perpetrator cannot be found. Enforcing agencies"
	—in this case the Environment Agency—
	"should be required to show that all reasonable measures have been taken to identify and act against the culprits."

Anne McIntosh: The problem seems to be apprehending the perpetrator, whether that involves seizing the vehicle or finding out who dumped on the land, the issue about which we have expressed greatest concern. That remains a flaw in the Bill's provisions on fly-tipping. The same is true of fly-posting: we tabled a number of amendments on over-posting, which, regrettably, the Government did not see fit to accept. However, all is not lost, and I hope that it will be possible further to scrutinise this issue in the other place.
	I turn to the last point that the NFU asked us to take up, which, again, we were unable to discuss because we did not reach the amendment on dogs. I hope that the Minister agrees that when the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 is fully implemented, it may become apparent that there are specific areas of farmland where dog control orders will be required to combat dog-related nuisance. I hope that the Government will seek to fulfil expectations in that regard.
	On provisions relating to dogs, I yield to none other than my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, who has done sterling work in this regard. I apologise to him and to the House that because of the way in which the knives fell—the decision was not ours but the Government's—we were unable to move and debate amendment No. 11. There is a real need for such an amendment because the Bill is silent on how local authorities will implement such provisions. As my hon. Friend is aware, not every local authority will have a dog warden or access to kennels, and most will not provide a 24-hour dog warden service, as is currently provided. The Bill will require the provision of kennels to house stray dogs in each local authority area, and it will require the provision of treatment for injured dogs—and, regrettably, the putting down of dogs that are too badly injured. We did not have a huge amount of time to discuss that in Committee.

Derek Conway: I must tell the House that I do not know how my hon. Friend has managed to stay so calm. The Minister intervened to say that it would all have been covered in earlier consideration had we got to it. We did not get to it and my hon. Friend could not move her amendment because of the guillotine imposed on the House by the Minister. The fact that we have not properly considered the details is nothing to do with my hon. Friend: it has happened because the Minister has managed to whip through a curtailment of our debate. She is absolutely right to put the Minister on the spot, which is supposed to be the point of a Standing Committee and of our remaining stages. I hope that those in the other place will read our deliberations and press the Minister taking the Bill through the upper House. I have read what this Minister said in Committee and it is not the same as what he is saying to the House now.

Anne McIntosh: We can move on, because we agree to disagree.
	I turn to other matters that we were unable to discuss earlier. They include amendments covering graffiti and the huge expense that it causes, as well as the problem not just of fly-posting, but of over-posting. I am delighted that, on this occasion if no other, we have the support of the Liberal Democrats. That is most welcome and we look forward to going into the Division Lobby together.
	I said earlier that all fly-tipped waste should be removed and I referred to amendment No. 11 about dogs. An interesting situation occurred on light pollution. The Minister told us categorically that there was no issue concerning light pollution, particularly from sports pitches and playing fields. Subsequently, Sir Trevor Brooking went to see him; perhaps that was another consultation that did not happen with due diligence and in time for the Committee stage. Two or three weeks ago, we tabled a series of amendments that appear on the amendment paper today. We wanted the opportunity of perhaps pressing them to a Division, but we did not reach them because the guillotines fell inappropriately, too frequently and allowed too little scrutiny of the Bill. Those matters were not discussed sufficiently or were not discussed at all.
	I dwelt at length on costs. The figures collated by the Government and their advisers, ENCAMS, demonstrate that local authorities will be unable to afford to implement the Bill. It is clear that receipts from fixed penalties will contribute only a fraction of the costs involved. Unless the Government are prepared to force local authorities dramatically to increase council tax bills or to offer alternative funding, many of the measures in the Bill will be unenforceable. They are discretionary for the most part, which shows that the Bill has been badly thought out. Its purpose is to grab headlines—it is another of the Government's eye-catching initiatives. Its flaws could not be corrected during the few Committee sittings or the little time available this afternoon and this evening. The Government have failed to listen or to amend the Bill to accommodate any of the concerns and representations raised with Conservative Members. The Bill is in need of further examination. We will not oppose it further in this place, but we hope that the other place will have the scope and time for more in-depth and fuller scrutiny than has been possible today.

Sue Doughty: This is an interesting and important Bill, but in some ways we are disappointed because we could have done more to deal with a lot of the issues. The Bill does not go far enough. Nevertheless, stronger fines and longer sentences for those who pollute and measures to seize vehicles that are used to pollute are all absolutely essential. We need not only to fine fly-tippers at a level that would make a real difference to the viability of their business—that is what it is all about— but to make it clear that such actions are environmental crimes and that environmental crimes really matter. They damage our environment; they damage the planet; and they are the sort of thing that should have no place in the modern world. We are an overcrowded planet and the harm that we do now not only to the land but to communities in a densely packed island like ours makes a difference, so we need to deal with the people who cause those problems.
	We have some reservations about the Bill, but we are being practical by considering what it needs to do. We need to take a serious look at some other issues. One issue on which we did not table amendments is the problem of train horns. A number of Members get constituents constantly coming to them saying that nuisance is created not only by noise from premises but by things such as train horns which have got so much noisier. The Rail Safety and Standards Board has not taken on board the fact that there are alternative ways of raising alarms that are not so disruptive.
	We had debates on Second Reading and in Committee about light pollution. I still feel uncomfortable with the fact that large organisations, such as ports, airports and harbours, have failed to recognise that, although some lighting is necessary for their effective and safe operation, they must do much more to deal with excess light. It often creates misery for the people living close by. Although some organisations take a good look at what they can do to minimise light pollution, not enough is happening. We certainly heard on Second Reading about the people who could see the light from a port—even though it was below the horizon, it still caused a glare.
	We also have concerns about the provisions for fly-tipping. If it occurs on council land, it will be cleaned up. However, if it takes place on private land that belongs to farmers, the National Trust or other large landowning bodies, the landowners will have to pay for the clean up even though they have done as much as they can to prevent fly-tipping by having proper gates, fencing and padlocks in place. We have not got very far on that. We also wonder how the Environment Agency will pay for the extra duties involved. Nowhere does it say who will pay for the work that the agency does.
	As I said in Committee, I attended a parish council meeting in Worplesden that discussed whether to erect CCTV cameras to identify fly-tippers on the common. Although the council, the police and representatives from the parish were at the meeting, no one from the Environment Agency attended because it was thought that its staff were already overstretched and could do no more to help. In other words, no more work was going to be placed on the agency even though it had responsibility and could play a strong role in this issue. I am on record as saying that I am a strong fan of the agency, but I am not an uncritical fan. Its needs resources and good calibre staff if it is going to do its work and if the Bill is to be successful. It lays further responsibilities on the agency.
	Another of our big concerns is conviction and detection, and the agency often has to do the detection work that leads to conviction. The Bill contains strong penalties to deal with fly-tippers, but someone has to be convicted before they are imposed. That means that they must be detected first and if we do not do that, we will not be able to deal with the repeat fly-tipper who runs a business based on fly-tipping and knows that he will get away with that. We shall not even be able to deal with the curious cases in which someone fly-tips opposite a Travellers' site, because he thinks that the Travellers will be blamed and he will get away with it.
	As we know, in 2003, the Environment Agency dealt with 5,399 incidents of fly-tipping, but there were only 254 prosecutions. That is not good enough. We need to get real deterrents in place, but that percentage of prosecutions is totally inadequate in sending the message that the polluter will and must pay. Much more needs to be done.
	Although we agree with the Conservatives about some aspects of the Bill, I am worried about their attitude to it. They opposed it in the first place, so it seems that if they cannot have it their way, they are not keen on it at all. Liberal Democrats are not entirely happy with it, but we must support it because there is no way that we can walk away from a Bill that will get hard with polluters. I serve on the Environmental Audit Committee, which has investigated environmental crime and the courts, fly-tipping and graffiti. The Bill addresses many such problems. One of our reports said that more resources were needed, and although that needs to be considered in another place, we must support such a Bill because pollution has an impact on communities.
	The Conservatives called for the Environment Agency to have the power of arrest, but the agency does not want that because it thinks that it would be inappropriate. Indeed, there is quite a bit of evidence to back that up. The Environment Agency rightly wants uniformed police to make arrests because the people involved in such activities are often deeply unpleasant and vicious individuals. We are also worried about who will clean up land.
	The chairman of the Environment Agency wrote a letter that was published in The Times on 1 February in which he commented on the Conservative party's James report, and I have listened carefully to the Conservatives to find out how they would pay for their proposals. The letter said:
	"The James report for the Conservative Party on the savings to be made from bureaucracy proposes cutting government grants to the Environment Agency by £47 million, which it describes as cuts in 'intrusive enforcement by the Environment Agency'  . . . As the Environment Agency actually spends £19 million on enforcement—acting on breaches of the law by the regulated sector as well as tracking down criminals acting outside the system altogether—my board would dearly like to understand what else is for the chop.
	Without further enlightenment, which is not available in the report itself, we are forced to conclude that it is the policy of Her Majesty's Opposition to significantly cut the policing of criminal dumping of waste and to reduce monitoring of the environment to safeguard public health, the maintenance of our natural habitats and upkeep of locks and weirs on rivers."
	The letter went on to say:
	"In the circumstances we can hardly fail to conclude that Mr James's recommendations have no basis in even the most rudimentary understanding of our business."
	I am sorry that such letters must be written because whether we are Government or Opposition Members, we are all are trying to find better ways of running government. We all want to get best value for the taxpayer, but the Conservatives cannot say on one hand that they want more enforcement and powers of arrest, but say on the other that they would take away the money that would allow that to happen. We have heard nothing from the Conservatives about how they intend to pay for their proposals.
	I am pleased about aspects of the Bill because they represent progress. I am glad that stronger action will be taken on abandoned vehicles. A lady who lives close to my constituency office, which is in a residential area that is not at the best end of town, takes it upon herself to record the numbers of abandoned vehicles and to feed them through the system, and she lets me know how she is doing. Such people need encouragement and to know that councils will act. Vehicles for sale on the streets cause a nuisance and the situation has been allowed to continue for far too long. That practice has started to be thought of as a fact of life because councils do not do much about it, so anything that makes the law to deal with the problem stronger is desperately important.

Liz Blackman: I shall be brief, because other hon. Members wish to speak and many points have been made several times over. Not surprisingly, I welcome the Bill. Time and time again, we have heard about the link between antisocial behaviour and poor, neglected and abused environments. It is right that the Bill focuses on breaking that link. Environmental vandalism exists in all our constituencies, in small and large areas.
	The consultation was crucial in introducing the measures. As far as I can tell, it was extensive and rigorous. The outcome is that the Bill complements earlier legislation, including the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, with which I was pleased to be involved. One of the Bill's aspects is to strengthen existing partnerships by requiring responsible authorities to ensure that tackling such behaviour is at the heart of their strategies. It also extends powers to partners, including parishes, extends and toughens penalties, and simplifies processes and procedures, which is important because it makes them easier to implement.
	I welcome in particular, as I am sure do my constituents, the wider use of fixed penalty notices, improvements to gating, which is especially relevant in Erewash, and tougher measures on fly-tipping, because Erewash has urban fringes that suffer from that crime, from graffiti, from nuisance vehicles and from dumped cars and litter. I recently conducted a large survey on issues that concern my constituents, and litter was at the top of the pile. In fact, it has risen to the top of the pile over the past couple of years.
	Among the range of penalties and measures that the Bill provides to tackle litter specifically, one gem is the ability for responsible authorities to impose litter cleaning notices on private households. Interspersed between the well kept houses with beautiful gardens that people have taken an awful lot of time and trouble to nurture—the real homes—it is demoralising to see front gardens that look like the local refuse tip, or worse. For the first time, the Bill gives powers to require those people to clean up their act. I am delighted with that measure.
	There is more to do on environmental crime, but for me the centrality of the Bill is whether the measures in it will be implemented by those that have been given the responsibilities. I want to give some examples of episodes in my constituency over the past year or so which have led us to pause with concern.
	West Hallam community centre in the village of West Hallam belongs to the Conservative parish council of West Hallam. The playgroup that rents the centre asked me to write to the management committee of the building to ask it to remove graffiti, and this is what I got back:
	"We recognise graffiti is a problem and have on several previous occasions had it removed. In our experience, however, unlike the suggestion in your letter, we have found the removal of the graffiti gives the green light for it to appear again."
	I am not speechless on many occasions, but that letter took my breath away. We are talking about transferring powers to such groups. I am not for one minute saying that all parish councils in Erewash hold that attitude—I am sure that they do not—but we must accept that there are still pockets of ignorance in our communities and we need to challenge them.
	The other episode that I would like to mention concerns one of my leisure centres that has a big recycling park, which was covered in dumped rubbish a year ago at Christmas and new year. One of my constituents flagged up the problem, so I challenged the local Conservative council to do something about it. A year ago, I received a letter saying that the council had put in extra resources and would monitor the situation and make further resources available the following year.
	I went to the leisure centre for a swim on 2 January this year, and what I saw took my breath away. The area was stacked with plastic bags full of Christmas refuse and children were playing in it. I again wrote a very strong letter to the council, and got this reply:
	"We deliberately stepped up our efforts to keep our main recycling sites tidy during the Christmas period following the problems experienced in previous years . . . Whilst this extra activity was successful, the real problem is residents using the recycling points to dump residual waste. This is in fact fly-tipping; a criminal offence carrying a maximum fine of £2,500. Whilst the Council plans to provide similar enhanced collection services next Christmas, we will be playing a much stronger enforcement role and persons caught fly-tipping will be prosecuted."
	The letter finally told me that both the tip and the recycling processing plant were closed at that time.
	Local councils must get their act together. My council knew that there was a problem. It should have supplied more refuse collection facilities. It should also have challenged the behaviour of those fly-tipping, and should have ensured that the local tip was open. This is not just about enforcing the law but about ensuring that there is the capacity for people who want to dump their refuse legitimately.
	Two years down the line, the council is putting a much better structure in place. It has made a significant investment in a warden system, which is about to come on stream, and more money is being invested in refuse collection and street cleaning. However, those measures must be implemented thoroughly and speedily, and the council must be transparent about its activities and schedules and make it clear what people can expect from its services both on a regular basis and when a problem occurs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Colin Burgon) has said, a hotline should be introduced so that people can report fly-tipping and littering, and feedback should be obtained on how services are working.
	The Bill is good and the measures will work if all responsible bodies, and the public, understand that environmental crime can be tackled, but that we all have a role to play. It provides an excellent opportunity to do more to clean up the environment.

EUROPEAN SCRUTINY

Janet Dean: My constituency has benefited enormously over the past few years from the investment through Government and European aid, as well as the increase in Government funding for our public services, programmes such as new deal and the massive increase in support for hard-working families. Most of the regeneration money has been concentrated in the inner wards of Burton upon Trent. However, the six northern rural parishes of my constituency previously received the former European regional development fund objective 5 funding. Uttoxeter, which received no Government help in the early 1980s when more than 2,000 jobs were lost with the closure of Bamford's agricultural factory and the local dairy, is, I am pleased to say, one of the towns that have received funding through the Government's market towns initiative.
	The need to address the problem of pockets of deprivation in Burton upon Trent has been recognised with millions of pounds of investment in the past 10 years, secured through objective 2 funding; the single regeneration budget—rounds 2 and 6; the neighbourhood management initiative; and Sure Start. The £20 million of regeneration funding has gone a long way to open up an area of Burton upon Trent called Centrum 100 for inward investment, as well as helping to reduce unemployment and raise educational attainment.
	SRB 6 money is being used to undertake work in three local high schools and five primary schools, which is improving results as well as personal and social development. In the neighbourhood management initiative area of the town, local people are being involved in improving the local environment and feel safer due to the proactive work of the neighbourhood wardens who have been funded through the initiative. The Sure Start programme is making a real difference to local families and has recently moved into the new children's centre, which is bringing together all the local children's services, including—I believe uniquely—paediatric specialists.
	I am proud of my constituency, which is probably one of the most varied in the country, due to its fine mix of urban and rural areas, as well as a population with many different backgrounds and origins. I am proud of all those who are working hard to improve the local communities in my constituency and the lives of local residents and I am proud of the increase in Government investment since 1997, which has brought more teachers, nurses, doctors and police officers, as well as improvements to our school buildings, such as the new Stapenhill sixth-form centre and the replacement Mosley primary school. I am glad that almost 4,000 pensioner households in Burton now benefit from the pension credit, and that more than 9,000 hard-working families are being helped by the child and working tax credits. I am pleased that unemployment in Burton has fallen by 68 per cent. since 1997, and that by March 2004, 800 young people were helped into work by the new deal for young people, and 400—
	It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Margaret Moran.]

Janet Dean: Four hundred people were helped by the new deal for over-25s, and 380 by the new deal for lone parents. The number of people unemployed for more than one year fell by 95 per cent. between 1997 and 2004.
	Having described many of the improvements that the policies of the Labour Government have achieved, as well as the successes of regeneration funding, I must say that I believe that we have only just commenced the regeneration of Burton upon Trent. We need a prolonged and sustained effort for at least another 10 years if we are really to address some of the key challenges that face the local community.
	While youth unemployment has fallen by 67.8 per cent. since 1997, it is proportionately higher in Burton upon Trent, at 30.1 per cent. of the total number unemployed, than in Great Britain as a whole. In Burton ward, youth unemployment is as high as 46 per cent. of the total.
	In education, although GCSE attainment has improved dramatically at Paget and Paulet high schools as a result of SRB intervention and the hard work and dedication of the staff, the number of pupils attaining five or more GCSEs at grades A to C in Burton schools is still below the national average at 46.1 per cent., compared with 53.7 per cent. nationally. That figure masks the low attainment levels of about 30 per cent. in the heart of Burton neighbourhood management area, which demonstrates the under-achievement in some parts of the town and among children from ethnic minority communities across Burton.
	Furthermore, the Basic Skills Agency found that 28 per cent. of the inner-Burton working population have poor literacy skills, and 30.6 per cent. have poor numeracy skills compared with 24 per cent. nationally. The 2004 indices of deprivation revealed that east Staffordshire has three super-output areas—which, as my right hon. Friend will know, contain 1,000 to 5,000 people—in the top 10 per cent. most deprived super output areas in the country. Those are all located in Burton upon Trent, within Winshill, Shobnall and Stapenhill wards.
	Income deprivation is an issue for around a third of the population, particularly in areas of those three wards. Lack of employment is also a problem, primarily in areas of Stapenhill, Horninglow and Anglesey wards. Education is an issue in areas of Stapenhill, which are in the top 5 per cent. most deprived super output areas in the country. Two areas, one in Winshill and the other in Burton ward, also show up in the top 10 per cent. most deprived for crime in the country.
	The living environment domain considers poor housing conditions and air quality, and deprivation is found in areas of Anglesey, Shobnall and Eton park wards such that they are in the top 5 per cent. most deprived super-output areas in the country—I do not know who came up with the idea of super-output areas, but it is very difficult to say.
	The population of inner Burton is accommodated in more than 20,000 households, and more than a third—39 per cent.—live in terraced properties. That is well above the average for England and Wales of 26 per cent., and is more akin to cities rather than towns the size of Burton upon Trent. Recent studies undertaken by East Staffordshire borough council on the condition of the houses show that many millions of pounds need to be invested to bring these terraced properties up to modern standards.
	Another challenge is to address health inequalities. Between 1998 and 2002, the rate of death from circulatory disease and from coronary heart disease in Burton was noticeably above the England rates—59.7 and 36.5 under-75s per 10,000 people respectively. Victoria ward's rates were more than double the national average for both diseases, while Edgehill and Waterside wards' rates were significantly above the England average for both causes of death. Rates of death from circulatory disease are well above the England average in the wards of Broadway, Eton and Horninglow.
	In the 1980s and 1990s, the borough lost more than 9,000 jobs as a result of restructuring of the brewing industry. Although, thankfully, the industry appears to have reached a period of stability after many years of uncertainty, a recent economic forecast study undertaken by East Staffordshire borough council suggests the loss of another 3,500 manufacturing jobs in the period up to 2020.
	The economic difficulties faced by Burton upon Trent are acknowledged in the Advantage West Midlands corporate plan, which states:
	"In addition there are a number of other towns within the region, which do not fall within the scope of the Market Towns Initiative, that are experiencing economic difficulties and which require Agency intervention. Over the Corporate Plan period the Agency proposes to begin to address the issues in these towns, initially starting with Hereford, Telford and Burton upon Trent."
	It is vital for the need for continuing regeneration funding for Burton to be recognised, so that it is possible to maintain and build on the improvements achieved in recent years. Single regeneration budget, Sure Start, neighbourhood management initiative and European regional development fund moneys are all due to end in the next two years. It is important for future regeneration funding, whatever form it takes, to recognise pockets of deprivation in towns such as Burton upon Trent, as well as considering the needs of rural areas and market towns like Uttoxeter.
	Regeneration strategies that focus on the urban areas of the west midlands and north Staffordshire have little impact on my constituency because of the distance from those major conurbations. Lying on the eastern edge of Staffordshire and the north-eastern edge of the west midlands, Burton upon Trent abuts the Swadlincote area of south Derbyshire in the east midlands region. Indeed, the town relates both socially and economically to Swadlincote in what many already recognise as a sub-regional entity. Burton upon Trent itself is a popular and thriving sub-regional shopping centre, and the town has a wide catchment area for leisure activities and services including Queen's hospital. The Burton travel-to-work area extends east and west from the town to include Ashby and Uttoxeter.
	Burton upon Trent has a distinctive identity. Known for its brewing industry, it has a strong cluster of food and drink businesses. The town's central location, with good transport links to the west midlands as well as to the north and east, has encouraged companies to locate in the area. Indeed, the rise in the number of businesses in the sub-region in the last five years upstages the rate in England in two sectors: other services, and transport and communications. There is pressure for development in the Burton area for housing, employment and retail growth.
	People want to live in Burton, and increasingly housing is being developed on reclaimed sites, bringing life back to the town centre. Businesses want to invest in the area, but we need an early resolution of the promised commitment of £14 million to develop the land south of Branston for employment. I hope that the Government office for the west midlands can speedily complete its appraisal of the project to allow the £7 million of ERDF moneys, together with the similar amount provisionally allocated by Advantage West Midlands, to open up the area and help to create 1,100 new jobs. Making that land available is crucial to ensuring that economic restructuring can continue, to compensate for the potential toss of manufacturing jobs in the future.
	Securing that funding from the two regional agencies from the west midlands would not only help development of the land south of Branston but, perhaps, help to unlock significant private-sector investment to allow 400 acres of brownfield land at the former Drakelow power station in south Derbyshire to be developed. That would help both the sub-region and the wider conurbations of the east and west midlands. There is a real opportunity to consider the economic regeneration of Burton upon Trent as part of the "Smart Growth: the Midlands Way" document, which is currently undergoing consultation. Efforts to ensure the area's economic prosperity are enhanced by the greater collaboration of the east and west midlands regions.
	In summary, there has been a great deal of progress in tackling deprivation and under-achievement in areas of Burton, but there is a lot more to do. We need to continue to raise educational achievement and the skills base, and to develop industries that raise income levels. We need massive investment in housing in the inner wards of Burton, and we need to tackle existing health inequalities. To address these problems, we need to continue to receive regeneration funding, as well as the record investment in public services that we have seen since 1997. We need a Government who are committed to continuing the new deal to help people into work, rather than to scrapping it, as the Conservatives have promised to do.
	I realise that my right hon. Friend will not be able to tell me what form of regeneration funding will replace the current programmes, but I hope that he will ensure that pockets of deprivation in constituencies such as mine, which are away from the major conurbations, will continue to receive the help that they need. Regeneration funding is essential to ensure that land is available to continue the economic restructuring necessary to compensate for any displacement of manufacturing jobs. I hope that my right hon. Friend will ensure an early commitment to the release of the £14 million provisional sum allocated to land south of Branston, so that we can see the creation of 1,100 new jobs and the possibility of improved cross-border working, bringing greater prosperity to the whole sub-region.

Keith Hill: I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean) on securing this debate and on bringing this important issue to the attention of the House. This is an opportunity not just for the House to hear how the people of Burton have benefited from the Government's regeneration policy, as she so eloquently demonstrated; it is also an opportunity for me to place on the record our continuing commitment to regeneration policies that have been shown to work. I have to say that the Government were already aware of the challenges facing Burton, not least due to the assiduous representations that my hon. Friend has made on her constituents' behalf. After tonight, I am even more comprehensively informed.
	During the 1990s, Burton lost more than 9,000 manufacturing jobs. Although it played an important role in the industrial revolution, it was perhaps best known for its contribution to the beer pumps of the world. Sadly, following the closure of many breweries, its importance as the centre of the nation's brewing industry has also diminished. The people of the area have had to confront changing economic realities and it has not been easy. As my hon. Friend said, three areas in the borough are among the 10 per cent. most deprived in the country, and average earnings lag behind the rest of the country. However, with household names such as JCB, Pirelli, Holland & Barrett and Marmite still based in the area, and with unemployment levels falling by nearly twice the national average, Burton has some real strengths on which to build. The pride and commitment of local people, as we have heard, has been buttressed by the funding provided for regeneration from a wide variety of sources.
	As we have also heard, parts of Burton have been eligible for European structural funds under various programmes since 1994; indeed, Burton has received grants in the region of £5.5 million. We have further heard about the impact of such funding in providing new skills for local people. It has provided a purpose built centre—WIRED—in which film and radio production, audiovisual editing and website design skills can be taught. I recognise that the current funding programme finishes in 2006, but I am afraid that, as my hon. Friend acknowledged, it is simply too early to say what the outcome of the European structural fund negotiations will be at this stage. Again, as we have heard, there is also the single regeneration budget, which has provided much needed support to initiatives across Burton, such as the Burton investing in inclusion programme. That scheme shows how the SRB has succeeded in levering in extra resources. Burton is receiving additional funding worth more than £6.5 million awarded by the regional development agency, Advantage West Midlands.
	Again as we have heard, Advantage West Midlands is playing a welcome role in the regeneration of Burton and surrounding areas. It has identified, as one of its key delivery vehicles, 10 business clusters. Advantage West Midlands is investing some £16 million in cluster projects next year, some of which will be particularly helpful in stimulating regeneration in the Burton area.
	With its history of involvement with the food and drink industry, Burton is particularly well placed to take advantage of two cluster projects: the food and drink information centre, which provides regular industry information; and the trade and consumer development project, which supports small and medium-sized enterprises in the staging of consumer and trade events. The latter project also provides assistance with product listings of retailers and caterers to enable local firms to take full advantage of marketing opportunities. It has to be said that some local products need little help. With 180,000 jars of marmite leaving the Burton factory every day, somebody, somewhere must love it. I know I do. As a regular consumer of this excellent spread, I can definitely say that "Marmite is my mate"!
	On a somewhat more serious note, Advantage West Midlands is also looking at improving higher education provision in the town to ensure that the people of Burton have the necessary skills to take advantage of every opportunity that arises. Discussions with Staffordshire university and Burton college regarding the provision of a higher education centre at Burton further education college are at an early stage, but even at the concept stage, this £4 million project has already attracted potential funding partners such as the Higher Education Funding Council, Burton college itself, Staffordshire learning and skills council and Advantage West Midlands. The provision of higher education facilities in the town can only benefit the local community and help Burton people to gain the confidence to take control of their own regeneration needs.
	That is why the heart of Burton neighbourhood management pathfinder is so important. It is one of 35 pathfinders launched in 2002–03 with a brief to drive improvements to local services by making them more responsive to local needs. The pathfinder covers parts of the wards of Eton Park and Shobnall in the town centre, with a population of 10,000. It has an expected allocation of £3.5 million over seven years, supported through the new ventures fund, of which around £1.4 million has been spent to date.
	This pathfinder has identified low educational attainment and lack of access to child care as barriers to employment, particularly to higher paid work. It is therefore supporting initiatives to provide coaching for GCSE pupils and other measures to improve school attendance, such as first day contact—a scheme to tackle the problem at the very start of a new school career and to stop non-attendance becoming a habit. The heart of Burton pathfinder has also, together with Sure Start and European funding, contributed to a children's centre, which provides 60 child care places, helping parents to take up offers of work. The really important aspect of that work is the way in which the community is being involved in managing its own neighbourhood.
	I have already spoken about the importance of the neighbourhood level, but as we have heard this evening, there is also a need to ensure that Burton has its place in regional economic growth strategies. I would agree with my hon. Friend that Burton now has the opportunity to act as a gateway between the west and east midland regions. The plans for "Smart Growth—the Midlands Way" give the town the perfect opportunity to take advantage of development opportunities, for instance with the site referred to by my hon. Friend already as the land south of Branston. It is a 120-acre site on the southern edge of Burton and it is well connected to the road network with direct access to the A38. The site has the potential to help Burton take its rightful place in the new regional spatial strategy for the west midlands. Although I cannot make any announcement this evening, I certainly undertake to maintain a strong interest in the progress being made in bringing the site into development.
	Burton should continue to make its case to take real advantage of all of the opportunities available. It needs to continue to exploit its position as a gateway linking the M6 in the west midlands with the M1 in the east midlands. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government are committed to continuing to support regeneration and neighbourhood renewal. We are getting better at targeting the pockets of deprivation that she mentioned, and we will continue to do so.
	I wish to take this opportunity to commend my Department's five-year strategy, "People, Places and Prosperity", to the House. It sets out our policy towards regeneration and should give my hon. Friend, the House and the country at large reassurance that we will not deviate from the successful policies that she described as working in Burton. We are also committed to a continual programme of improving the targeting and operation of those policies, which, as we know from careful monitoring, are having an impact. The Government are pledged to a programme that has already brought benefits to Burton, as we have heard this evening, and to many other locations all over England. I wish every success to the people of Burton and other parts of my hon. Friend's constituency and to my hon. Friend herself, who is working so hard on their behalf.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes past Ten o'clock.